others regard credences as metaphysically reducible to beliefs about probabilities (see Byrne in Brewer & Byrne 2005),
You might therefore expect that source (free online) to contain the word “credence”. It does not.
What about the word “probability”? No. There are two results searching “proba” and neither says anything like that we should use beliefs about probabilities rather than credences (which are degrees or probabilities of belief).
It’s hard to look up academic philosophy positions because the cites are lies. They just send you to a 20 page text, provide no specific quote or page number, and it has nothing to do with the topic they cited it for.
I was concerned after seeing the title – “Perception and Conceptual Content” – and reading the introductory section. It didn’t look relevant. So I skimmed and searched, but I’m not willing to read the whole 20 pages just in case there’s a relevant aside somewhere. I was expecting a text that’s actually on the topic it was cited for. I did look at the ending, which is about the same topic as the start and the middle bits I skimmed.
If you’re going to cite a whole text without specifying a section/passage/page/quote, the whole text in general ought to be relevant to what you’re citing it for (or failing that it at least should be easy to find the right part, e.g. by reading the table of contents and seeing one section is about the right topic). Even if there was a relevant paragraph or two somewhere in the 20 pages, which used different terminology, the cite would still be awful.